“Puffing Jamie”: The Commercial and Ideological Importance of Being a ‘Philosopher’ in the Case of the Reputation of James Watt (1736–1819)

Carlyle Thomas to Carlyle John A. , Birmingham, 10 August 1824, in Sanders Charles Richard (ed.), The collected letters of Thomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle, iii: 1824–25 (Durham, 1970), 120–4, p. 123.

Smiles Samuel , Lives of Boulton and Watt. Principally from the original Soho MSS (London, 1865), 200.

Carlyle T. , “Signs of the times”, in Critical & miscellaneous essays (London, 1869), ii, 328. [Originally published in Edinburgh review, 1829.].

Carlyle T. , Sartor Resartus, in Collected works (London, 1870–82), i, 117–18.

Carlyle T. , “Chartism”, in Critical and miscellaneous essays. Collected and republished, v (London, 1869), 399.

Sussman Herbert L. , Victorians and the machine: The literary response to technology (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 27–28.

Henry Lord Brougham , Lives of men of letters and science, who flourished in the time of George III (London, 1845), 386–7.

Pevsner Nikolaus , The buildings of England. London 1: The cities of London and Westminster (Harmondsworth, 1957; 2nd revised edn, 1962), 396, notes that the monument cost £6,234, a very significant sum. Bond Francis , Westminster Abbey (London, 1909), commented rather amusingly on the Chapel of St Paul in the Abbey: “This chapel and everything in the neighbourhood, is utterly dwarfed by an enormous statue of James Watt, who made some improvements in the steam engine; it should be carted off to the Embankment, where it would be in scale with the Shot Tower and the Cecil Hotel” (p. 246). The gigantic marble statue by Chantrey was eventually removed from the Chapel in December 1960 and replaced by a simple plaster bust presented by the Institute of Engineers. The monument was removed to the Transport Commissions Museum then at Clapham. See Carpenter Edward Gentleman David , Westminster Abbey (London, 1987). I understand that the statue is now in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and is destined for a site at Heriot-Watt University. My thanks to Jack Morrell for supplying part of this information and for being amused by the rest of it.

MacLeod Christine , “James Watt, heroic invention and the idea of the industrial revolution”, in Berg Maxine Bruland Kristine (eds), Technological revolutions in Europe: Historical perspectives (Cheltenham, 1998), 96–115.

Some of the enlightening studies in this area are: Guerlac Henry , “Newton's changing reputation in the eighteenth century”, in Rockwood Raymond O. (ed.), Carl Becker's Heavenly City revisited (Ithaca, 1958), 3–26; Yeo Richard , “Genius, method, and morality: Images of Newton in Britain, 1760–1860”, Science in context, ii (1988), 257–84; Outram Dorinda , “The language of natural power: The éloges of Georges Cuvier and the public language of nineteenth-century science”, History of science, xvi (1978), 153–78; Gascoigne John , “The scientist as patron and patriotic symbol: The changing reputation of Sir Joseph Banks”, in Shortland Michael Yeo Richard (eds), Telling lives in science: Essays on scientific biography (Cambridge, 1996), 243–65; Cantor Geoffrey , “The scientist as hero: Public images of Michael Faraday”, ibid., 171–93.

See especially, Shapin Steven , “Who was Robert Hooke?” in Hunter Michael Schaffer Simon (eds), Robert Hooke: New studies (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989), 253–85; Shapin , “A scholar and a gentleman: The problematic identity of the scientific practitioner in early modern England”, History of science, xxix (1991), 279–327; and Biagioli Mario , Galileo courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism (Chicago, 1993). A recent survey of such identity studies within the framework of constructivism is made by Golinski Jan , Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science (Cambridge, 1998), 58–66.

Thus states Joseph Black: “I have the pleasure of thinking, that the knowledge which we have acquired concerning the nature of elastic vapour, in consequence of my fortunate observation of what happens in its formation and condensation, has contributed, in no inconsiderable degree, to the public good, by suggesting to my friend Mr. Watt of Birmingham, then of Glasgow, his improvements on this powerful engine.” See Black Joseph , Lectures on the elements of chemistry , ed. by Robison John (Edinburgh, 1803), i, 184. In dedicating this edition to Watt, Robison stated that Watt himself acknowledged that his steam engine improvements were owed to “the instructions and information you received from Dr. Black” (ibid., i, p. iii). Robison had made the same point in his articles on “Steam” and “Steam engine” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica , 3rd edn (18 vols, Edinburgh, 1797), xvi, 733–43 (Steam) and 743–72 (Steam engine).

For example, Dickinson H. W. Jenkins Rhys , James Watt and the steam engine (Oxford, 1927), 22; Dickinson H. W. , A short history of the steam engine (Cambridge, 1939), 175; McKie Douglas de V. Heathcote Niels H. , The discovery of specific and latent heats (London, 1935), 122; Partington J. R. , A short history of chemistry, 2nd edn (London, 1948), 95.

The letter was published as “History of the origin of Mr Watt's improvements on the steam engine…”, The Edinburgh philosophical journal, ii (1820), 1–7, and subsequently in Robison John , A system of mechanical philosophy , ed. by Brewster David (4 vols, Edinburgh, 1822), ii, pp. iii–x. But Watt's correction to Robison's account was put in writing much earlier, shortly after the publication by Robison of Black's Lectures. This account was circulated to John Playfair in 1809. (See Robinson Eric McKie Douglas (eds), Partners in science: Letters of James Watt and Joseph Black (London, 1970), 416–21, and Smeaton W. A. , “Some comments on James Watt's published account of his work on steam and steam engines”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxvi (1971), 35–42.) Watt's testimony is used as a primary basis for arguing against Watt's direct debt to Black and ‘latent heat’ by Kerker Milton , “Science and the steam engine”, Technology and culture, ii (1961), 381–90. See also Cardwell D. S. L. , From Watt to Clausius: The rise of thermodynamics in the early industrial age (London, 1971), 40–55.

Hall A. Rupert , “What did the Industrial Revolution owe to science?”, in McKendrick Neil (ed.), Historical perspectives: Studies in British thought and society in honour of J. H. Plumb (London, 1974), 129–51, esp. pp. 139–42.

Watt in Robison, op. cit. (ref. 14), ii, p. ix.

For examples of this historiography see: Musson A. E. Robinson E. , Science and technology in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1969); Mathias Peter , “Who unbound Prometheus? Science and technical change, 1600–1800”, in Mathias (ed.), Science and society, 1600–1800 (Cambridge, 1972), 54–80. A very recent writer on the history of the science of energy echoes this general tradition: “… Watt was so closely connected to the tightly knit scientific community at Glasgow College that historical debates over his debt to Black's ‘physics’ are somewhat misplaced. Far from being an isolated mechanical genius, Watt's interests in economy, steam power and heat were also the interests of academic peers such as Black and Robison” ( Smith Crosbie , The science of energy: A cultural history of energy physics in Victorian Britain (London, 1998), 33).

For the contrast between essentialist and attributional approaches to the issue of discovery see Brannigan Augustine , The social basis of scientific discoveries (Cambridge, 1981) and also Schaffer Simon , “Scientific discovery and the end of natural philosophy”, Social studies of science, xvi (1986), 387–420. With regard to invention, see Morus Iwan Rhys , Frankenstein's children: Electricity, exhibition and experiment in early-nineteenth-century London (Princeton, 1998), 177–83.

Farey John Jr , A treatise on the steam engine: Historical, practical and descriptive (London, 1827); Tredgold Thomas , The steam engine, comprising an account of its invention (London, 1827); Arago D. F. J. , Historical eloge of James Watt, translated by James Patrick Muirhead (London, 1839); Muirhead J. P. , Correspondence of the late James Watt on his discovery of the theory of the composition of water (London and Edinburgh, 1846); Muirhead J. P. , The origin and progress of the mechanical inventions of James Watt (3 vols, London, 1854); Williamson George , Memorials of the lineage, early life, education and development of the genius of James Watt (Edinburgh, 1856); Muirhead J. P. , The life of James Watt (London, 1858); Henry Lord Brougham , Lives of men of letters and science (ref. 7); Smiles , op. cit. (ref. 2).

Robinson Mackie , op. cit. (ref. 14); Musson A. E. Robinson E. , Science and technology in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1969); Robinson E. Musson A. E. , James Watt and the steam revolution: A documentary history (New York, 1969); Tann Jennifer (ed.), The selected papers of Boulton & Watt, i: The engine partnership 1775–1825 (Cambridge, Mass., 1981); Tann Jennifer , “Marketing methods in the international steam engine market: The case of Boulton and Watt”, Journal of economic history, xxxviii (1978), 363–91; idem, “Mr. Hornblower and his crew: Watt steam engine pirates in the late 18^th century”, Transactions of the Newcomen Society, li (1979–80), 95–109.

Torrens Hugh , “Jonathan Hornblower (1753–1815) and the steam engine: A historiographic analysis”, in Smith Denis (ed.), Perceptions of great engineers: Fact and fantasy (London, 1994), 23–34; Griffiths John , The third man: The life and times of William Murdoch 1754–1839, the inventor of gas lighting (London, 1992). Though from my perspective these authors tend in common directions regarding Watt, I do not wish to imply unanimity of purpose or similarity of approach. See Torrens Hugh , review of Griffiths J. , The third man, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xlviii (1994), 161–3.

Torrens , “Jonathan Hornblower” (ref. 21), 25–27.

Thus Griffiths states: “Watt was undoubtedly a great inventor, as much because of the remarkable range of his eclectic mind and his insistence on checking every speculation by detailed, thorough and carefully recorded experiment as because of his skilful and occasionally unscrupulous plagiarisms.” And, in amplifying the suggestion that the historical records were ‘cleaned’ by James Watt Jr, he expresses the view that “While in many respects James Watt was a modest man, he was also inordinately jealous of his reputation as an inventor and philosopher, and James junior seems to have been almost psychotically compelled to try to win from Watt's ghost a posthumous affection and approbation he had been denied in his lifetime, by maintaining and enhancing that reputation. This he did more ruthlessly and unscrupulously than the great inventor would have dreamed of doing for himself” ( Griffiths , op. cit. (ref. 21), 345, 348).

The co-ordinated activities of the custodians of Watt's reputation can be followed in detail in archival sources, most notably the papers of James Patrick Muirhead at the University of Glasgow. This custodianship will be the focus of a separate study.

See MacLeod Christine , Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English patent system, 1660–1800 (Cambridge, 1988), chap. 4. The following section draws substantially on part of David Philip Miller, “The usefulness of natural philosophy: The Royal Society of London and the culture of practical utility in the later eighteenth century”, The British journal for the history of science, xxxii (1999), 185–201. For interesting new information on Arkwright see Hewish John , “From Cromford to Chancery Lane: New light on the Arkwright patent trials”, Technology and culture, xxviii (1987), 80–86.

Watt James to Boulton Matthew , 30 July 1781, quoted in Fitton R. S. , The Arkwrights: Spinners of fortune (Manchester, 1989), 138–9.

Watt to Boulton , 18 Tuesday 1783, quoted in Schofield Robert E. , The Lunar Society of Birmingham (Oxford, 1963), 349–50.

Schofield , op. cit. (ref. 27), 350–1.

Robinson E. , “James Watt and the law of patents”, Technology and culture, xiii (1972), 115–39, pp. 127–8. As Robinson notes, the involvement of the Royal Society in constituting such committees was also a feature of one version of Watt's “Heads of a Bill to explain and amend the Laws relative to Letters Patent and grants of privilege for new Inventions”, but was dropped in another version. It would be very interesting to know the circumstances under which this later omission of the Royal Society from explicit involvement occurred. It seems likely, for example, that Banks would not have been in favour of such a scheme. James Watt, “Thoughts upon Patents, or exclusive Privileges for new Inventions”, is reproduced in Robinson and Musson, op. cit. (ref. 20), 214–28.

Miller , op. cit. (ref. 25).

Robinson , op. cit. (ref. 29), 127. The Fellows of the Royal Society who testified for Boulton & Watt were: J. A. de Luc, William Herschel, Dr James Lind, Robert Mylne and Jessie Ramsden. Except for the instrument-maker Alexander Cumming, the rest of the witnesses (John Rennie, William Murdock, Richard Mitchell and John Southern) were all employees of Boulton & Watt at that time. Witnesses called against Boulton and Watt were: John Braithwaite, William Braithwaite, Jabez Hornblower, Thomas Rowntree and Richard Trevithick.

Quoted in Tann , “Mr. Hornblower and his crew” (ref. 20), 100. An important corrective on the claims of Watt and Hornblower is provided by Torrens, “Jonathan Hornblower” (ref. 21), which gives a fascinating history of mythmaking about Watt. It should be noted that the Hornblower in Boulton & Watt v. Hornblower and Maberley is Jabez Hornblower (1744–1814), the elder brother of Jonathan Hornblower (1753–1815).

“Professor Robison's narrative of Mr. Watt's invention of the improved engine versus Hornblower and Maberley 1796”, MS. Doldowlod, reproduced in Robinson and Musson, op. cit. (ref. 20), 23–38.

Ibid., 25–26.

Ibid., 37.

Ogburn William F. Thomas Dorothy , “Are inventions inevitable? A note on social evolution”, Political science quarterly, xxxvii (1922), 83–98.

Ibid., 91.

See Halévy Elie , Thomas Hodgskin (London, 1956). But it must be remembered that the providentialist view of invention was equally deterministic and also played down the role of the individual. Abolitionists' arguments thus are a secularized version of providentialist ones appealing to natural law rather than God's providence as the ‘cause’ of invention.

Hodgskin Thomas , Popular political economy: Four lectures delivered at the London Mechanics' Institution (London, 1827), 87.

Ibid., 87–88.

Ibid., 89–90, my emphasis.

Ibid., 91.

An interesting point of contrast is provided by David Brewster who, in railing against the lack of government support for inventors, speculated about what might have happened had James Watt acceded to the attempts of the Russians to steal him and become a Russian subject. The result in short, according to Brewster, would have been the loss of British industrial might. On this view, then, Watt was far from dispensable and the vagaries of the career of an individual might leave the affairs of nations in the balance. (See [ Brewster David ], review of The origin and progress of the mechanical inventions of James Watt, North British review, xxiii (1855), 193–231, pp. 212–13.).

Coulter Moureen , Property in ideas: The patent question in mid-Victorian Britain (Kirksville, Miss., 1992).

MacLeod Christine , “Concepts of invention and the patent controversy in Victorian Britain”, in Fox Robert (ed.), Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology (Amsterdam, 1996), 137–53.

An important instance of the collective biography was Timbs John , Stories of inventors and discoverers in the useful arts (London, 1860).

Williamson , op. cit. (ref. 19), 242.

Ibid., 242.

Ibid., 242–43.

Ibid., 244.

Dircks Henry , Inventors and inventions (London, 1867).

Smiles , op. cit. (ref. 2), 200.

See [ Smiles Samuel ], “James Watt [review of Muirhead, The life of James Watt (1858)]”, Fraser's magazine, lix (1859), 318–29.

Morus , op. cit. (ref. 18), 166. The phrase referring to fame was Grove's: “It would scarcely add to the dignity of philosophy, or to the reverence due to its votaries, to see them running with their various inventions to the patent office. … If parties look to money as their reward, they have no right to look for fame; to those who sell the produce of their brains, the public owes no debt” ( Grove W. R. , “Physical science in England”, Blackwood's magazine, liv (1843), 514–25, p. 521; cited by Morus , 166).

See Smith , op. cit. (ref. 17), 198–9, and Smith Crosbie , ‘“No where but in a great town’: William Thomson's spiral of class-room credibility”, in Agar Jon Smith Crosbie (eds), Making space for science: Territorial themes in the shaping of knowledge (Basingstoke, 1998), 118–46, pp. 140–1.

For an overview of the history of the water controversy see: Partington J. R. , A history of chemistry (London, 1962), iii, 344–62; Wilson George , The life of the Honourable Henry Cavendish (London, 1846); Muirhead (ed.), Correspondence of the late James Watt (ref. 19); Jungnickel Christa McCormmach Russell , Cavendish (Philadelphia, 1996), 271–72. See also Miller David Philip , “The water controversy: A reassessment”, paper presented at Annual Conference, Australasian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, Maroochydore, Queensland, July 1999.

Address by the Rev. Harcourt W. Vernon , Report of the ninth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Birmingham in August 1839 (London, 1840), 3–69. Importantly, Harcourt, Whewell and Peacock regarded Harcourt's work as exhibiting sound historical practice compared with the slipshod efforts of Arago and Brougham. For a forceful statement of this position see: [ Peacock George ], “Arago and Brougham on Black, Cavendish, Priestley and Watt”, Quarterly review, lxxvii (1845), 105–39.

Roderick Murchison to William Harcourt, 28 December 1839, in Morrell Jack Thackray Arnold (eds), Gentlemen of science: Early correspondence of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (London, 1984), 327–29, pp. 328–9.

Ibid., 329.

Ibid., 329.

See the acknowledgements of receipt of these works in Watt Jr to Babbage, 25 February 1828 and 29 July 1832 British Library, Add. MSS 37184, f. 110 and 37187, f. 54. James Watt Jr also signed The Times declaration in favour of Herschel for the Presidency of the Royal Society in 1830 at Babbage's instigation. See Watt Jr to Babbage, 29 November 1830, British Library Add MSS. 37185, f. 360.

Ashworth William J. , “Memory, efficiency, and symbolic analysis: Charles Babbage, John Herschel, and the industrial mind”, Isis, lxxxvii (1996), 629–53, p. 629.

Ibid., 631. Ashworth is quoting from: Herschel John , “Travel diary, 1809–1810”, 17 July 1810, Herschel Papers, Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin.

See Morrell Jack Thackray Arnold , Gentlemen of science: Early years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford, 1981); Murchison to Harcourt , 22 March 1840, in Morrell Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 58), 330–1.

See “Address by Roderick Impey Murchison, F.R.S., F.G.S. and Major Edward Sabine, V.P.R.S.”, Report of the tenth meeting of the BAAS held at Glasgow in August 1840 (London, 1841), pp. xxxv–xlviii, at p. xxv.

Whewell William , [Address], Report of the third meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Cambridge in 1833 (London, 1834), pp. xi–xxvi, esp. pp. xxiv–xxv; Yeo Richard , Defining science: William Whewell, natural knowledge, and public debate in early Victorian Britain (Cambridge, 1993), 225–6.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 66), p. xxv.

[ Brewster David ], “ART. V. — History of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present times”, Edinburgh review, lxvi (1837), 110–51, pp. 146–7.

Ibid. , 147–8. Brewster's subsequent contributions to the reviews on these questions included: “Life and discoveries of James Watt”, Edinburgh review, lxx (1840), 466–502; “Watt and Cavendish — Controversy respecting the composition of water”, North British review, vi (1846), 473–508. And see ref. 70 below.

[ Brewster David ], “Muirhead's Life and Inventions of James Watt”, North British review, xxiii (1855), 193–231, p. 206.

When looked at in this way, some of the subtleties of various authors' accounts become apparent. Thus Brougham in his inscription on the monument probably meant more than is usually detected in the words describing Watt as “directing the force of an original genius early exercised in philosophic research to the improvement of the steam engine…”.

On Brewster's antagonism toward the Cambridge Network see Davie George , The democratic intellect: Scotland and her universities in the nineteenth century (Edinburgh, 1961), 175–8. On his continuing struggles over the BAAS see Morrell Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 64) and also Morrell J. B. , “Brewster and the early British Association for the Advancement of Science”, in Morrison-Low A. D. Christie J. R. R. (eds), Martyr of science: Sir David Brewster 1781–1868 (Edinburgh, 1984), 25–29. On the undulatory theory and struggles over it see Cantor Geoffrey , Optics after Newton: Theories of light in Britain and Ireland, 1704–1840 (Manchester, 1983).

See for example, Hall A. Rupert , “What did the Industrial Revolution in Britain owe to science?”, in McKendrick Neil (ed.), Historical perspectives: Studies in English thought and society (London, 1974). For a concise and incisive summary of this debate and a resolution of it see Inkster Ian , Science and technology in history: An approach to industrial development (Basingstoke, 1991), chap. 3. And finally, for the tenor of recent historiography: Stewart Larry , “A meaning for machines: Modernity, utility, and the eighteenth-century British public”, The journal of modern history, lxx (1998), 259–94.

Hall A. Rupert , The Abbey scientists (London, 1966), 35.